Evaluating the quality of informed consent

Author:

Sugarman Jeremy1,Lavori Philip W.2,Boeger Maryann3,Cain Carole4,Edson Robert3,Morrison Vicki5,Yeh Shing Shing6

Affiliation:

1. Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Center for the Study of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Departments of Medicine and Philosophy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

2. VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Palo Alto, California, USA; VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA

3. VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Palo Alto, California, USA; VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USA

4. Center for the Study of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Departments of Medicine and Philosophy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

5. Minneapolis VAMC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

6. Northport VAMC, Northport, New York, USA

Abstract

Context Although informed consent is a critical means of protecting the rights and interests of participants in clinical research, effective and efficient means of evaluating the quality of consent are needed. Having such means will be important to monitoring consent and testing potential improvements in the consent process. Objective To develop and test a practical and general means of evaluating the quality of informed consent for clinical research. Methods We developed and tested the Brief Informed Consent Evaluation Protocol (BICEP), a short telephone-based assessment of informed consent. As soon as patient-participants completed the informed consent process for a participating VA Cooperative Studies Program clinical trial they called an interviewer who administered the BICEP. Results 632 participants completed BICEP, representing eight ongoing studies from 14 VA and one non-VA medical centers across the country. Site coordinators reported little to no difficulty implementing BICEP. The average duration of BICEP was 8.8 minutes (SD 3.6). Overall, patient-participants evaluated the informed consent process positively. A reliable coding system was then developed to analyze the verbatim responses of the final 191 participants. An Informed Consent Aggregate Score (ICAS) had a mean score of 8.23 (SD 1.17) with a range of 0–10, with 10 a perfect score; and a Therapeutic Misconception Aggregate Score (TMAS) had a mean of 1.62 (SD 0.93) with a range of 0–5, with 5 a perfect score. Conclusions The BICEP is an efficient means of evaluating informed consent that is acceptable to research participants and research personnel. While participants tend to be satisfied with the informed consent process, the BICEP indicates there is room for improvement in the informed consent process for research.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3